I live in Grants Pass so of course I have a Noveske..I am changing my views on what type of firearms to concentrate on and am leaning to more interchangeable AR platforms for practicality and for the fun of modding them out etc etc Now many of us prefer to have unregistered firearms. I am thinking I 'missed the boat' by not buying some private buy lowers earlier this year before Oregon started up the mandatory private sale registration BS. So I have been pondering about getting some 80% lowers to counter my tardiness. But I get to thinking why do this 80% bit? What is the long term advantage? I can see people wanting to own legal AR's that arent tagged to you in some fed database but the cost savings by 'makin yer own' isnt really worth the extra hassle. But what good is an 80%'er going to do you in the long run? The only answer I can think of is in the event that the state/fed decides to ban ownership of 'assault military type weapons', and force buybacks etc then the people who went the 80% route will then own true ghost guns. Understandable. However I would be willing to make a large bet that if the govt decides to outlaw these AR type weapons then they will at the same time implement some debilitating Class 10 type felony penalties for being in possession of one of them after their grace period expires or whatever. So will I be willing to act as a potential felon in the future just so I can have an AR stashed/buried to take on the federal 'troops' ? nope!...I think I will cut up my AR's and give to the govt and stick with my just as lethal but legal 'sporting' rifles and shotguns. I write this as I have had first hand experience in this scenario. I lived in a British law country for many years where ownership any type of semi automatic military type weapon had been banned years ago. The penalty of possessing one just wasnt worth it unless you were a true criminal...being immediate incarceration with a mandatory minimum one year sentence on first offense. Additionally the police had complete search rights of person and property upon suspicion of anyone possessing prohibited weapons. Pretty draconian for sure but then I see we have similar laws in the US for terrorism that are slowly bleeding over to non typical terrorist activities. I saw on tv the other day the Alaska judge state that he was considering charging the drunken native who drove into the dog sled race with an 'act of terrorism'. Go figure that one out..! I am not trying to fire up another millionth take away my assault rifle thread but just asking for input into my 80% quandry. Am I missing something ?